CPD IN THE NEWS

In an election fueled by populist anger and dominated by talk of economic insecurity, why aren’t any of the presidential candidates talking about the Federal Reserve?

After nearly a decade of high unemployment, severe racial and gender disparities and wage stagnation, voters are heading to the ballot box in pursuit of a fairer economy with less rampant inequality. In California and New York, low-wage workers are celebrating historic agreements to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. And the economy and jobs consistently rank among the top concerns expressed by voters of all political stripes.

One government institution reigns supreme in its ability to influence wages, jobs and overall economic growth, yet leading candidates for president have barely discussed it at all. The Federal Reserve is the most important economic policymaking institution in the country, and it is critical that voters hear how candidates plan to reform and interact with the Fed.

The Fed too often epitomizes the problems with our economy and democracy over which voters are voicing frustration: Commercial banks literally own much of the Fed and are using it to enrich themselves at the expense of the American working and middle class. When Wall Street recklessness crashed the economy in 2008, American families paid the price.

At the time, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, which stepped in during the crisis to save Dimon’s firm and so many other banks on the verge of collapse. Although the Fed’s actions helped Wall Street recover, that recovery never translated to Main Street, where jobs and wage growth stagnated.

Commercial banks should not govern the very institution that oversees them. It’s a scandal that continues to threaten the Fed’s credibility. An analysis conducted earlier this year by my parent organization, The Center for Popular Democracy, showed that employees of financial firms continue to hold key posts at regional Federal Reserve banks and that leadership throughout the Federal Reserve System remains overwhelmingly white and male and draws disproportionately from the corporate and financial world.

When the Fed voted in December to raise interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade, the decision was largely driven by regional Bank presidents — the very policymakers who are chosen by corporate and financial interests. In 2015, the Fed filled three vacant regional president position, and all three were filled with individuals with strong ties to Goldman Sachs; next year, 4 of the 5 regional presidents voting on monetary policy will be former Goldman Sachs insiders. Can we trust these blue-chip bankers to address working Americans’ concerns?

Yet despite the enormous power it wields and the glaring problems it continues to exemplify, the Fed has received little attention this election cycle. As noted by Reuters last week, two of the remaining candidates for president, Hillary Clinton and John Kasich, have been mute on what they would do about the central bank. Donald Trump’s sporadic statements about the Fed have been characteristically short on details, prompting former Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank President Narayana Kocherlakota to call for Clinton, Trump and all presidential candidates to clarify exactly how they plan to oversee the Fed’s management of the economy. Ted Cruz has piped up about the Fed on a few occasions, although his vocal endorsement of “sound money” and other policies that contributed to the Great Depression warrant clarification.

The most detailed Fed reform proposal from a presidential candidate to date was a December New York Times op-ed in which Bernie Sanders wrote that “an institution that was created to serve all Americans has been hijacked by the very bankers it regulates,” and urged vital reforms to the Fed’s governance structure.

On Monday, Dartmouth economist Andy Levin, a 20-year Fed staffer and former senior adviser to Fed Chair Janet Yellen and her predecessor Ben Bernanke, unveiled a bold proposal to reform the Federal Reserve and make it a truly transparent, publicly accountable institution that responds to the needs of working families.

The New York primary provides a perfect opportunity for the remaining presidential candidates to tell us what they think about the Federal Reserve. Candidates in both parties should specify whether they support Levin’s proposals, and if not, articulate their preferred approach for our federal government’s most opaque but essential institution.

As Trump, Cruz and Kasich gear up for a potentially decisive primary, they would do well to respond to the many calls for clarity on the Fed. And on Thursday night, Sanders and Clinton will have the chance to clarify their stances on the Fed when they debate in Brooklyn, just a few miles away from Wall Street and the global financial epicenter that is the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

As New York voters get ready to decide which of the remaining candidates would make the best president, they will be asking themselves which candidate will better handle the economy. The candidates’ positions on the Fed must be part of the equation.

Jordan Haedtler is campaign manager of the Fed Up campaign, which calls on the Federal Reserve to adopt policies that build a strong economy for the American public. Fed Up is an initiative of the Center for Popular Democracy, a nonprofit group that advocates for a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda.

By Jordan Haedtler

Source

The Federal Reserve offered a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy but provided little insight into when it will raise its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade.

Fed officials voted unanimously to keep the target rate at zero for now, after wrapping up their regular two-day policy-setting meeting in Washington on Wednesday afternoon. In a carefully worded statement, the central bank noted that the economy has expanded “moderately.” It pointed to solid job gains and lower unemployment as signs that the labor market has improved, adding that underemployment has also diminished.

Perhaps most important, the Fed characterized the risks to its outlook for the economy as “nearly balanced” — the same description it used after its previous meeting. Some analysts believe that the Fed will move once the risks are weighted more evenly.

U.S. stock markets spiked after the release of the Fed statement but quickly settled back down. Both the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average and the broader Standard & Poor's 500 average were up about half a percentage point in mid-afternoon trading.

Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said several times that she expects the central bank will raise its benchmark federal funds rate before the end of the year, a move that would herald the end of the central bank’s unconventional — and controversial — efforts to resuscitate the American economy.

Many investors and economists believe the moment will come during the Fed’s meeting in September, which would be followed by a news conference allowing Yellen to explain the central bank’s decision more fully. But a vocal minority think the Fed will wait to move in December, the next meeting with a scheduled news conference. A few economists — including two officials within the central bank — believe the Fed should hold off until 2016 to be sure the recovery is solid.

Fed officials have debated how strong of a signal to send as the moment of liftoff nears. But the central bank has repeatedly emphasized that its decision will depend on the evolution of economic data — and so investors should look to the numbers for the green light for action.

A key figure will be the government’s estimate of second quarter economic growth slated for release Thursday. Falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a sharp slowdown in the growth of consumer spending helped drive an unexpected contraction in the economy over the winter. Fed officials are hoping that second quarter GDP growth will prove the dip was merely temporary.

A stronger reading would also align with the pickup in hiring over the past two months. Unemployment is nearing its lowest sustainable level, making some officials antsy for the Fed to start tapping the brakes on the economy.

But others have argued that exceptionally low inflation means the Fed has plenty of time to act. Price growth remains well below the central bank’s 2 percent target, and officials have said they want to be “reasonably confident” it is moving up before tightening policy. In June, the central bank had stated that energy prices “appear to have stabilized.” But on Wednesday, it cited further declines in energy prices, along with the falling price of imports, as reasons inflation has remained low.

The Fed slashed its target interest rate to zero when the country was in the grips of the financial crisis in 2008, and it has stayed there ever since. In addition, it pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in an effort to lower longer-term rates and spur borrowing among consumers and investment among businesses. Unwinding those policies will likely take years.

Meanwhile, the Fed is facing renewed scrutiny in Congress. The House Financial Services committee on Wednesday passed a bill that would require the central bank to explain when it deviates from certain monetary policy models, disclose more information on salaries and allow for audits of the Fed's decision-making process. Another bill sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady would create a commission to examine the Fed, which recently celebrated its centennial.

“The Fed is trying to do too much,” Brady said in an interview. “It can be the right tool, but not for everything and everybody.”

The central bank is also facing pressure from the other end of the political spectrum. A coalition of community activists and labor groups is urging the Fed to leave its target rate unchanged amid elevated unemployment rates among minorities.

“Until we reach genuine full employment, there is no reason for the Fed to contemplate putting people out of work and slowing down our economy via interest rate hikes,” the Fed Up campaign said in a statement.

Source: The Washington Post

In the face of the Janus case, local elected officials across the country are renewing our efforts to help workers organize—in traditional ways, and in new ones. Brad Lander is a New York City Council Member from Brooklyn and the chairman of the board of Local Progress, a national association of progressive municipal elected officials. Helen Gym is a Councilmember At Large from Philadelphia and Vice-Chair of Local Progress, a national network of progressive elected officials.

Read the full article here.

The Daily Signal - December 17, 2014, by  Kate Scanlon - Federal Reserve chairwoman Janet Yellen met with several left-leaning groups last month to discuss monetary policy. Now, several conservative organizations are asking for the same opportunity.

Twenty representatives from more than a dozen conservative groups hand-delivered their request to the Federal Reserve last week seeking a meeting with Yellen.

The groups, led by American Principles in Action, include Americans for Tax Reform, the Jack Kemp Foundation and Citizens for Limited Government.

The letter states that “thought leaders from the center-right” deserve the same opportunity because “the left by no means has a monopoly on concern for unemployment and wage stagnation.”

Steve Lonegan, director of monetary policy at American Principles in Action, told The Daily Signal:

Monetary policy is at the root of economic stability, critical for assuring equitable prosperity for all Americans. Conservatives are committed to building a sound economy where everyone, rich and poor, can grow and prosper.

The left has met with Janet Yellen in an effort to influence monetary policy. Conservatives cannot sit back and allow liberals to have sole voice with the Federal Reserve System.

Conservatives have the science, history, facts and philosophy for advancing good money that assures equitable prosperity for all Americans.

In November, Yellen met with representatives from several left-leaning groups, including  The Center for Popular Democracy, a group that, according to its website, works with “high-impact base-building organizations, organizing alliances and progressive unions” to advance a “pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial and economic justice agenda.”

Ady Barkan, an attorney with the center, told the Associated Press that she thought Yellen and other Fed officials “listened.”

“It was a very good conversation,” said Barkan. “They listened very intently, and they asked meaningful follow-up questions.”

According to The Daily Caller, the closed-door meeting was a source of frustration for conservatives because “the press was shut out of the meeting and no transcript made available.”

According to Bloomberg, the Nov. 14 meeting also included Fed governors Stanley Fischer, Jerome Powell and Lael Brainard.

The letter from the conservative groups argues that they deserve a similar meeting because “an evenhanded insight on achieving our shared goal of job creation and economic mobility would facilitate steps toward realization of this mutual objective.”

You can read the full letter here.

Source